How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?

There's a thorough discussion of this piece claiming to expose the lack of "diversity" (read: Negroes) in progressive cities in the Open Thread. I find the piece to be pretty ill-considered, and insulting to Latinos and Asians, in particular. But more than that it repeats an unfortunate trope among writers tackling race--it treats African-Americans as agency-less automatons, awaiting the right programming from white policy-makers.

We begin with:

Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there's a
generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best,
the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized
cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin,
Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a
paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system,
excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are
frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are
found wanting, often even by locals, as "cool" urban places.

But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If
you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and
Los Angeles you will find that the "progressive" cities aren't red or
blue, but another color entirely: white.

And end with:

This trail has been blazed not by the "progressive" paragons but by
places like Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Atlanta, long known as one of
America's premier African American cities, has boomed to become the
capital of the New South. It should come as no surprise that good for
African Americans has meant good for whites too. Similarly, Houston
took in tens of thousands of mostly poor and overwhelmingly African
American refugees from Hurricane Katrina. Houston, a booming metro and emerging world city,
rolled out the welcome mat for them - and for Latinos, Asians and other
newcomers. They see these people as possessing talent worth having.

This history and resulting political dynamic could not be more
different from what happened in Portland and its "progressive"
brethren. These cities have never been black, and may never be
predominately Latino. Perhaps they cannot be blamed for this but they
certainly should not be self-congratulatory about it or feel superior
about the urban policies a lack of diversity has enabled.

There is so much wrong here. But leaving aside the fact that the author starts out by disqualifying New York, L.A., and Chicago, leaving aside the blinding whiteness of dubbing Atlanta "un-progressive," leaving aside that most of these "progressive" cities have more black people than their surrounding states, I think the implicit argument that these cities should be "doing more" to assure that their black population meets the national average is odious.

Man listen--Negroes like Atlanta. Negroes like Chicago. Negroes like Houston. Negroes like Raleigh-Durham (another area that doesn't make the cut, for some reason.) Negroes like Oakland. Negroes have the right to like where they live, independent of Massa, for their own particular, native, independent reasons (family? great barbecue? housing stock?) Just like Jewish-Americans have the right to like New York--or not. Just like Japanese-Americans have the right to like Cali--or not.

This particular Negro loves Denver--and Chicago too. But the notion that black people are pawns on a chess-board, which conservatives and liberals move around in order to one-up each each other, has got to go. Sometimes--just sometimes--a black dude isn't a problem. He's just a dude trying to marry a beautiful woman, raise a decent kid, retire to an tropical island, smoke some good herb, and drink some good rum.